Kerala HC: Special Pay of Judicial Officer is Part Of Pay, Should Be Reckoned To Calculate Pension

 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

contends that the action of the respondents in issuing

Government Orders which are completely at variance with the

directions contained in the judgment of this Court amounts to

an open challenge to the orders and authority of this Court and

that the said directions are completely illegal and violative of

the directions of this Court. {Para 14}

15. I have considered the contentions advanced. This

Court in the earlier round of litigation had specifically

considered the nature of the special pay granted to judicial

officers pursuant to the directions of the Shetty Commission.

It was found that special pay would come within the definition

of pay under Rule 12(23). Special Pay is a benefit which is

granted to officers posted in specific posts having

administrative responsibilities for the extra work which is done

by them. The argument that grant of special pay to some

officers will lead to a junior-senior anomaly had been agitated

in the earlier litigation also but did not find favour with this

Court. The argument cannot be sustained for a moment in

view of the fact that the principles on which a difference in pay

between a senior and junior is to be considered to be an

anomaly are provided in the very same Rule itself. Grant of

special pay for administrative duties would not, by any stretch

of imagination, result in any junior-senior anomaly since it is a

special emolument given for extra work done.

16.  We hope and trust that the appellants would put a

quietus to this issue, so that, objections of this nature are not

unnecessarily raised as against the judicial officers concerned.”

The impugned orders passed by the Government,

without considering the declaration of law by this Court, are

completely unsustainable. The contention of the respondents

that special pay cannot be reckoned for the purpose of fixation

of pension is without any merit whatsoever. The said

contentions are repelled. The orders and letters impugned in

these writ petitions are, therefore, set aside. It is declared that

the special pay granted to judicial officers is a part of their pay

and that it is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculation of

pension. The respondents shall take appropriate steps to see

that the pension of the judicial officers who drew special pay at

the time of their retirement is revised and the arrears are

disbursed to them forthwith, at any rate, within three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) NO.694 OF 2022

 CHERIAN VARGHESE Vs STATE OF KERALA,

PRESENT

 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

Dated:  18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 

Print Page

Whether the state is liable to pay interest to government servant for delayed payment of salaries and pension?

The direction for the payment of the deferred portions of the salaries and pensions is unexceptionable. Salaries are due to the employees of the State for services rendered. Salaries in other words constitute the rightful entitlement of the employees and are payable in accordance with law.

Likewise, it is well settled that the payment of pension is for years of past service rendered by the pensioners to the State. Pensions are hence a matter of a rightful entitlement recognised by the applicable rules and regulations which govern the service of the employees of the State. The State

Government has complied with the directions of this Court for the payment

of the outstanding dues in two tranches. Insofar as the interest is concerned,

we are of the view that the rate of 12% per annum which has been fixed by

the High Court should be suitably scaled down. While learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the award of interest was on account of the action

of the Government which was contrary to law, we are of the view that the

payment of interest cannot be used as a means to penalize the State

Government. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the Government which has delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 399 of 2021

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Smt Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari 

Dated: February 8, 2021

Print Page

Kerala HC stays Govt Order Deferring Payment Of Portion Of Salary To Govt Servants Amid COVID-19

In State of M.P Vs. Ranojirao Shinde [AIR

(1968) SC 1053], it has been held that right to a sum of

money is ‘property’. In the decision in Deokinandan Prasad

Vs. State of Bihar & others [AIR 1971 SC 1409], it has

been held that right to receive pension is a property and the

same cannot be taken away or withheld by a mere executive

order. If, right to receive a sum of money is a property right

and if pension, which is only a deferred salary, cannot be

withheld without authority of law, it needs no elaborate

consideration, at this stage atleast, to hold that salary or any

portion of it cannot be withheld/deferred/denied, by the State

Government, without authority of law. Article 300A of the

Constitution of India which confers a constitutional right to

property, will include within its purview, salary also, as a

property right, atleast prima facie. Though, as submitted by

the learned Advocate General, Kerala Financial Code is only a

compilation of various orders and is not a law unto itself but

only lays down the procedure in which the disbursement of

salary is to be made, I cannot countenance the submission that

the Government has the power to delay the disbursement of

salary by few months by an executive order. When our

Constitution in unmistakable terms stipulates that property of a

citizen can be deprived only by an authority of law, and when

that authority of law means a law duly framed, Ext.P1 to be

valid, must of necessity trace its source to some provision of

law.

18. However much I tried to bring Ext.P1 within some

framework of law, I could not find any basis for such an order

in any of the statutes. Neither in the Epidemic Diseases Act

1897 as amended by the Ordinance of 2020 (Epidemic Diseases

Amendment Ordinance No.5 of 2020) nor in the Disaster

Management Act 2005, could I seek solace, to give a legal

justification for the issuance of Ext.P1. The provisions that were

read out, specifically Sections 38 and 39 of the Disaster

Management Act 2005, do not specify or confer any power

upon any Government to defer the salary due to its employees

during any kind of disaster. Prima facie, I feel that law is found

wanting to justify the issuance of Ext.P1.

19. I also find from Ext.P1 that there is ambiguity in the

manner in which the amounts obtained from the proposed

deferment of salary is planned to be utilized. It only refers to

the financial difficulty that is faced by the Government. The

said financial difficulty is not a ground for the State

Government to defer the payment of salary by an executive

order. Prima facie, I find that deferment of salary for whatever

purposes it may be, amounts to denial of property. In such a

view of the matter, I stay the operation of Ext.P1 for a period of

two months.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

W.P(C) TMP NO.182 OF 2020

KERALA VYDYUTHI MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS) Vs STATE OF KERALA,

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2020

[W.P.(C) TMP Nos.182, 183, 184, 196 & 198 of 2020]

Print Page

Whether wife can claim interim maintenance so that her income becomes equal with income of husband?

There is no doubt that the appellant has been working with reputed multinational companies. Her own income affidavit reveals that her net income is approximately Rs. 1 Lac per month. There is no child from the wedlock and she has no other liabilities. Looking at the totality of the facts, we find that this is not the case where the appellant is unable to maintain herself. In fact, the earnings of the appellant are sufficient to maintain herself and give her the required comforts of life. The law on the subject as discernible from some of the judgments mentioned above is clear that when a spouse is qualified and has the capacity to earn, normally, interim maintenance is not to be granted. In a given situation, the courts have been granting some maintenance in a case where there is capacity to earn but some other factors prevent the spouse from earning despite making best efforts. However, in a case like the present, where the spouse is qualified and is actually earning, interim maintenance under Section 24 need not be granted. We do not agree with the submission of the appellant that though she is earning a good amount of salary, she should still be given interim maintenance to bring her at par with the lifestyle of the respondent. The provisions of this section are not meant to equalize the income of the wife with that of the husband but are only to see that when divorce or other matrimonial proceedings are filed, either of the party should not suffer because of paucity of source of income and the maintenance is then granted to tie over the litigation expenses and to provide a comfortable life to the spouse. Where, however, both the spouses are earning and have a good salary, merely because there is some salary difference cannot be a reason for seeking maintenance. In the present case, what the appellant seeks is an equalization with the respondent which we are afraid cannot be granted under Section 24.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before G.S Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ.)

K.N .  v.    R.G .

MAT. APP(F.C) 93/2018 and CM APPL 18317/2018

Decided on February 12, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7704

MAT. APP(F.C) 93/2018

Print Page

Whether employee can be denied salary on ground that he has not opened account in official bank?

  As far as the drawal of salary through a bank account

is concerned, it will not be necessary that each of the employees

should have the salary account with official bank itself. The

official bank can very well transfer the salary of the petitioners

to their accounts existing in SBI, on a request/standing

instruction from the accounts wing of the 1st respondent. For

such transfers, the 1st respondent need not compel the


petitioners to open zero balance account or salary account with

IDBI, in case they do not want to have any transaction with the

IDBI. The audit objection raised against making payment in cash

could have been rectified by placing proper instructions to the

official bank of the 1st respondent having the financial

transactions including salary of the staff of the 1st respondent to

transfer the salary due to the petitioners to their account. As

soon as the account number and other details of the petitioners

are furnished to the official Bank, it is quite possible that the

amounts due to each of the employee are credited to their

account. Thereby the 1st respondent will get the services of the

IDBI also as explained by them in the counter affidavit even

without insisting the petitioners to have accounts with the IDBI.

Such trivial matters could have been solved at the end of the 1st

respondent itself. Therefore, denial of salary to the petitioners on

the ground that they did not open account with IDBI bank is

illegal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

              SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

       14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017

                    WP(C).No. 37894 of 2016 (J)
                 

           T.M.DINESH KUMAR,
          V
           MALABAR CANCER CENTRE SOCIETY,
          

Print Page

Whether husband can obtain information about salary of wife under right to information Act?

The case of the petitioner before this Court is that
her husband (respondent No. 8) is seeking personal information
of the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short
“RTI Act”), and these information are being given to him by the
concerned authority. The contention of the petitioner before
this Court is that the information sought by her husband are
not covered under the RTI Act, as the information being sought
are relating to her salary, posting etc., which are personal in
nature.
Perused the information sought by the informant
from the department. The information sought are as to how
many teachers are working. The salary being given to the
petitioner etc. These information do not appear to be private in
nature in any manner nor are they exempted under the RTI
Act. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner, which may 
suggests that the information sought by the respondent,
relating to the petitioner, is covered under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI
Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2489 of 2016

Jasmeet Kaur. Vs  State of Uttarakhand & others.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Citation: AIR 2017 UTTAR 1

Print Page

What deductions are permissible from salary while computing compensation in motor accident claim petition?

An employee who is serving under an employer as

in the instant case, may be having so many personal needs. He

might have availed housing loan, vehicle loan, personal loans etc.,

from the employer and may be effecting timely remittance by way

of monthly installments. That apart, there may be deductions

towards contribution to Provident Fund, Pension fund etc., and all

these deductions clearly reflect the amounts spent by such employee

from his pay packet containing the gross salary. In otherwords, these

amounts, by way of deductions made are part of his hard earned

money and as such, it could not have been deducted to work out the

monthly income. The same should have been reckoned by the

Tribunal for working out the monthly income and for appropriate


multiplicand. In the said circumstance, we deprecate the course

followed by the Tribunal and hold that the entire monthly salary of

Rs.8,802/-, as certified in Ext.A12 should have been accepted by the

Tribunal without effecting any deduction as no deduction is shown

against the income tax.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
                                                            &
                     MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

             29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

                                           MACA.No. 1112 of 2006 

            THRESSIAMMA SEBASTIAN,
Vs
         SHOJI RAM, S/O. GANGA RAM,
          

Print Page

Whether suit filed by employee for his wages is covered by provision of S 304 of Maharashtra municipalities Act?

A suit filed by an employee for his earned wages or salary is not covered by the provisions of section 304 of the 'Maharashtra Municipalities' Act also. Nonpayment of salary or earned wages of an employee could not be termed to be an act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of the provisions of the Act or in respect of any alleged negligence or default in the execution of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act as such. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, there is no substance in this contention of Shri Rajkarne.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

C.R.A. No. 61 of 1970

Decided On: 28.03.1971

 Municipal Committee i.e. The Municipal Council, Washim
Vs.
Purushottam Dattatraya Pande

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.

Citation:1974 MHLJ 599

Print Page